SpaceX Tuesday...

[shalmaneser]

Flooble said:

I make a point of reading the (sensible) science stories on the BBC website as many times as possible, in an effort to game their "most read" algorithm.

I pondered writing a bot to do it from multiple IPs but that's probably going too far!

You would be performing a service!

[MartG]

Flooble said:

I make a point of reading the (sensible) science stories on the BBC website as many times as possible, in an effort to game their "most read" algorithm.

I pondered writing a bot to do it from multiple IPs but that's probably going too far!

[Smiljan]

I make a point of going no where near the BBC news sites.

[CraigyMc]

MartG said:

Flooble said:

I make a point of reading the (sensible) science stories on the BBC website as many times as possible, in an effort to game their "most read" algorithm.

I pondered writing a bot to do it from multiple IPs but that's probably going too far!

That's been done before with that sort of open vote system, with hilarious results.

IIRC it was a PhD student in Uni when I was studying who set all the lab systems to vote repeatedly for his favourite band in some sort of "best band of the whatever" type of vote, so his (weird, esoteric) choice came in above Pink Floyd and the Who, etc. To their credit the BBC didn't mess with the results, and just commented on the surprising result.

He was pleased.

[Brother D]

4K of the flight and explosion

[Eric Mc]

Good stuff.
It's interesting watching those pressure vessels shooting out of the fireball.

[Beati Dogu]

Elon on the SN10 landing and Michael Bay ending:

"Was super fun tbh haha"

“Thrust was low despite being commanded high for reasons unknown at present, hence hard touchdown. We’ve never seen this before. Next time, min two engines all the way to the ground & restart engine 3 if engine 1 or 2 have issues.”

[Flooble]

I find it interesting how they are so ready to alter their flight routines (and quick to reprogram them too!).

From only starting two raptors to doing three-raptor flips and now they are going from single-engine landing to dual engine landing (and apparently the third one ready to spool up again too ... given the timeframe to restart if there was a failure I can't imagine that the third engine would be a "cold start" so probably some clever tweaks needed to keep the third engine on standby?)

It literally took a month to go from "Hmm, only starting two engines is stupid" to "Okay, three engine flips are a go". I can't imagine many companies which can even finish their "analysis" meetings in a month. Let alone analyse what went wrong, decide on, design, code and test the fix then release it.

They seem to need between two and four iterations to achieve each goal. e.g. Mk1 and Mk2 failed completely but SN1 was the first to pass a pressure test (I think it passed one before it exploded?); it then took to SN4 to achieve a static fire; although SN5 and 6 were successes out the door they had been expecting SN4 to fly too of course. And then it took 8, 9 and 10 to get a mostly successful landing (*).

So that said, if SN11 succeeds in landing and not blowing up, how fast do we think the programme might proceed - just a bit of fun while we're bored at home on a Saturday night!

I'll stick my neck out with a wild guess (no basis for this other than wild imagination, it'll be interesting to revisit in a year), just to see if I can entice some others into making a forecast too:

April - SN11 flies and lands without exploding afterwards
June - SN11 flies again
August - SN15 flies and lands (same profile as 8-9-10-11)
September - SN15 tries to fly supersonic and breaks up as it goes transonic
November '21 - SN16 flies supersonic and breaks up as it decelerates back through the sound barrier
January - SN17 flies supersonic and lands but has lost heat shield tiles
March - SN17 flies supersonic with new tiles and lands intact
May - SN17 flies and lands on the new drone ship but is too damaged for another flight

June - Superheavy #1 flies a hop like SN5/6
August - SN18 flies suborbital without a booster (lost at sea)
November '22 - Superheavy #1 launches SN19 on Orbital trajectory; Superheavy fails to land. SN19 fails to reach orbit.
Feb '23 - Superheavy #2 launches SN20 into Orbit; Superheavy lands. SN20 fails re-entry.
May '23 - Superheavy #2 launches SN21 into Orbit; Superheavy lands. SN21 fails rentry but gets further than SN20.
August '23 Superheavy #2 launches SN22 into Orbit; Both land successfully
November '23 - Superheavy #2 launches SN22; Superheavy #3 launches SN23. Both boosters land.
On-orbit refuelling between Starships fails; both Starships lost
February '24 - Superheavy #2 launches SN24; Superheavy #3 launches SN25. Both boosters land.
On-orbit refuelling between Starships fails; both Starships lost. SN#2 retired.
May '24 - Superheavy #4 launches SN26; Superheavy #3 launches SN27. Both boosters land.
On-orbit refuelling between Starships succeeds but something fails during re-entry; both Starships lost.
August '24 - Superheavy #4 launches SN28; Superheavy #3 launches SN29. Both boosters land.
On-orbit refuelling between Starships succeeds and both Starships land.

November '24 ... bit late for the Mars Synod but maybe fling a ship in that direction anyway?



Okay I got a bit carried away, but it will be fascinating to see how fast they can progress.

(*) Yes I know, SN8 was spectacularly successful in that you could argue it achieved several goals at the first attempt e.g. : "three raptor flight"; "high altitude flight"; "rotation to horizontal"; "controlled descent"; "flip to vertical"; "translation to landing pad and yaw correction".

Edited by Flooble on Sunday 7th March 10:25

[annodomini2]

I think your cadence is a bit low, also I think the initial heat shield tests will be done sub orbital, then SSTO, Starship can SSTO with minimal payload. (probably have to add 3-6 more engines, depending on Raptor's peak power at the time).

I'd put money BN1 fails during pressure tests.

They are doing what is called rapid prototyping, build fast, test fast, fail often.

Analysis is sometimes cheaper, but doesn't cover all the variables.

The thing is, historically, space development was restricted to government funded programs due to the risk and minimal financial reward.

Governments are affected by public perception, so lots of "failures" looks bad from a PR perspective. Hence the over-analyse, launch once approach.

But you will learn a lot more being radical and failing often.

[Beati Dogu]

Their attitude is that if you’re not failing, you’re not testing it hard enough.

[Smiljan]

I’m just reading Lift Off by Eric Berger, I’ll let you know if that is really their attitude.

Edited by Smiljan on Sunday 7th March 16:04

[Smiljan]

Here's another little video, someone has synced up SN8, 9 and 10 from the moment the engines are relit for landing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDTZa-tm3A8

[anonymous-user]

Smiljan said:

Here's another little video, someone has synced up SN8, 9 and 10 from the moment the engines are relit for landing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDTZa-tm3A8

Would be great to see that synced to altitude (when still in freefall) in wide shots. SN10 fired up the engines at a higher altitude, I think.

[Beati Dogu]

SN11 is going to be wheeled out to the launch area soon. The engines are already attached apparently.

Also they've built a new beefy looking stand, which will probably be used for testing the booster. The stand hasn't been moved to the pad yet.


RGV Aerial Photography posted a superimposed plan of proposed launch site expansion over a photo they took in Feb:



Another landing area, test stand area and a couple of settlement lagoons among other changes.

[Zoobeef]

Beati Dogu said:

SN11 is going to be wheeled out to the launch area soon. The engines are already attached apparently.

Also they've built a new beefy looking stand, which will probably be used for testing the booster. The stand hasn't been moved to the pad yet.


RGV Aerial Photography posted a superimposed plan of proposed launch site expansion over a photo they took in Feb:



Another landing area, test stand area and a couple of settlement lagoons among other changes.

Are there any employees on site on launch day? Bunkered down?

If so I wonder how many park their cars and get transport to work "just in case"

[MartG]

I believe no personnel remain at the launch site during a flight - they all decamp to the technical site a few km away

[MartG]

[Beati Dogu]

SN11 is on its way the the launch area now. Rolling past at walking pace.

[Smiljan]

Beati Dogu said:

Their attitude is that if you’re not failing, you’re not testing it hard enough.

Quarter way into the book, that is the attitude

[Beati Dogu]

Of course the ‘one shot to get it right’ approach still has merit, as the recent Mars lander has shown. But it’s also eye wateringly expensive and only really something government level deficit spending can allow.